Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Rant" data-source="post: 8457231" data-attributes="member: 7033019">Honestly, analysis and criticism of a product's merits and flaws is what I would expect from any discussion forum. Merits and flaws. There are merits I've noted. I've also pointed out flaws, and that's where we tend to get stuck conversationally - when people are rushing to deny the flaws instead of to address them. That's an odd thing I haven't encountered elsewhere.This particular topic started as one about compatibility with D&D 5e. It doesn't meet my standards for "compatible." It doesn't need to either, as some have pointed out. It is its own stand-alone system meant to replace D&D rules, it has no expectation of compatibility with what it replaces therefore. So, why would people argue rather vehemently that is it compatible with the rules, as opposed to adventures? Not sure, but it's what we seem to be circling here.Most of the time a subject matter forum is interested in all aspects of a hobby, a product, and so on - the good and the bad. I've rarely encountered a community response elsewhere that "denies" the bad, the flaws, the drawbacks, etc. It's not constructive to pretend something is perfect, or that it's worthless. Everything has good points and drawbacks. I'd be happy to discuss more of what I'm seeing that's good, great, even, but the hard edged denial of drawbacks is odd, to say the least.The only thing someone "achieves" in a discussion forum is a discussion. A discussion often involves different viewpoints respectfully disagreeing on some points and agreeing on others. It's not an echo chamber or a praise and worship session for a product, it's a discussion. What I was hoping to "achieve" was a discussion. If there are things we disagree on, we disagree. That's a discussion. I'm a bit surprised at the tone of the responses, however. Criticizing flaws in a product is a normal thing to do. Critical thinking is good, analysis is good. There's no obligation to defend the things we buy, so it's strange that reasonable criticisms of a product of mutual interest are treated as strange, when that's one of the assumed purposes of any discussion of a product. Press the attack was brought in due to concerns over inadequate playtesting. Segueing to:Playtesting is important. More so before a product is released. That's how most people view it, regardless of a few outliers who think the consumer tests a product. My questions on playtesting began with the "compatibility" question. How were those playtests conducted that "assure" compatibility? It's a reasonable question. It's also not the consumer's job to test the product. But it is logically our purview to judge it. The issue of Press the Attack is separate from the compatibility question (beyond the fact that it's a universal maneuver that isn't part of the rule system Level Up replaces, but that's a bit tangential) but it's an example of the questionable nature of the playtesting, from my perspective. Again: The pre-release playtesting, not the current "in the wild" consumer playtesting.</blockquote>

Verification